Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Section 23 (1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) gives the court the power to order periodical payments. Recent decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal have focused on such orders, considering whether spousal maintenance orders should be made, for how much, and for how long.
In SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance)  EWHC 4183 (Fam) Mostyn J considered the correct approach to periodical payments orders. He found that (save in a wholly exceptional case) maintenance orders can only be made to meet needs. MCA 1973, ss 25A(1)-(2) stipulate that spousal maintenance should be terminated as soon as is ‘just and reasonable’. A maintenance term should be considered unless the payee would be ‘unable to adjust without undue hardship’ to the ending of the payments. This suggests that parliament accepts ‘a degree of not undue hardship’ in making the adjustment. Unless undue hardship would likely be experienced the court ought to provide an end date to a maintenance order.
Assuming that there are ‘hard needs’ which have to be met by a spousal maintenance order, in SS v NS Mostyn J considered the questions: how much? and for how long?
Mostyn J approved of view in the Law Commission report Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements (Law Com No 343, 26 February 2014) that: ‘…the transition to independence, if possible, may mean that one party is not entitled to live for the rest of the parties’ joint lifetimes at the marital standard of living, unless he or she can afford to do so from his or her own resources’, remarking that it is a mistake to regard the marital standard of living as the lodestar, because:
Mostyn J found that the Holy Grail should be ‘where it is just and reasonable, an eventual termination and clean break’. He
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234